Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23CHCV01270, Date: 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV01270    Hearing Date: October 13, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 10-13-23

Case #23CHCV01270

ARBITRATION

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Salon Republic

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Linda Jackson, pro per

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On December 15, 2019, plaintiff Linda Jackson entered into a “License Agreement” with defendant Salon Republic, whereby Plaintiff was granted access to a certain space within certain premises located at 6316 Topanga Canyon Blvd.  In March 2020, Defendant “suspended” use of the premises due to the Covid-19 pandemic, with no rents due and payable during said period. In September 2020, Defendant allowed operations at 25% capacity. Plaintiff maintains the limited capacity was not practical for business operations.

On June 10, 2020, Plaintiff executed a new License Agreement at a new location, 20700 Ventura Blvd., Woodland Hills. A second non-essential business shutdown occurred. Plaintiff subsequently requested a termination of the License Agreement pursuant to impossibility caused by a force majeur event from the Covid non-essential business operation limitations. Defendant demanded payment of the rent through the end of the agreement period—June 13, 2021. Plaintiff vacated the premises, and alleges Defendant improperly submitted false reports to credit rating agencies for non-payment of rent without acknowledging the Covid-19 restrictions.

On May 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint.

RULING: Granted.

Defendant Salon Republic moves to compel arbitration pursuant to the terms of the License Agreement. The court electronic filing system shows no opposition or reply at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.

“A written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.) “On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless it determines that: (a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (b) Grounds exist for the revocation of the agreement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)

The law creates a general presumption in favor of arbitration. In a motion to compel arbitration, the moving party must prove by a preponderance of evidence the existence of the arbitration agreement and that the dispute is covered by the agreement. The burden then shifts to the resisting party to prove by a preponderance of evidence a ground for denial (e.g., fraud, unconscionability, etc.). (Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin'l Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413-414; Hotels Nevada v. L.A. Pacific Ctr., Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 754, 758.) Any challenges to the formation of the arbitration agreement should be considered before any order sending the parties to arbitration. The trier of fact weighs all evidence, including affidavits, declarations, documents, and, if applicable, oral testimony to determine whether the action goes to arbitration. (Hotels Nevada v. L.A. Pacific Ctr., Inc., supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at p. 758.)

The existence of the contract and arbitration agreement itself remain undisputed. [Declaration of Ryan Harikul, Ex. A-B.] Section 20(f) presents the arbitration clause, and states in relevant part: “All disputes, controversies, or differences which may arise between the parties, our of or in relation to this Agreement, or for the breach thereof, which cannot be resolved between or among the parties shall be finally settled by binding arbitration by the American Arbitration Association…”  The language of the agreement clearly covers the disputed conduct set forth in the complaint. The court therefore finds the agreement addresses the subject matter of the action.

The action is therefore ordered to arbitration in compliance with the terms of the agreement. The parties are governed by American Arbitration Association rules. The parties may stipulate to an arbitrator, but in case they are unable to agree upon an arbitrator, the parties are directed to contact American Arbitration Association for engagement of the selection process. If the parties cannot impasse on an arbitrator and American Arbitration Association rules otherwise preclude selection, the parties may submit a list of one to two arbitrators from each side, where the court will select the arbitrator. The parties have 30 days from the date of this order to begin the selection process.

“If a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in this State or not, has ordered arbitration of a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State, the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.) The court orders the action stayed.

The court will set an OSC re: Status of Arbitration and Stay at the time of the hearing.

Defendant to provide notice.